What We Missed.
Depressing news on Caster Semenya as the obsession with binary gender continues as she is ostracized for potentially transcending comfortable notions of gender, including biological ones. She might lose the medal. Related.
Trigger warning. A reader sends a story about a murder that is being characterized as a lover's quarrel as opposed to an incident of violence against women, in a small town in Chicago.
Accusations of sexual abuse at the hands of prison workers has doubled.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15926
I am so sad about the Castor Semanya news.
Not because it's "bad news"; she's the same person with the same accomplishments. But because this girl's very private health records are up for public scrutiny. Because people are making horrible comments. Because this has ruined a wonderful athlete's career. Because this teaches people to think in this stupid binaries.
Do yourself a favor and don't read the comments on the link.
I should have read the comments here before I clicked through the link - some of the comments over there are so vile, it made my stomach turn.
What the story is saying is through presence of testes and lack of ovaries and uterus, Semenya was born with only male gonads. That would make her more biologically male by many people's standards. Biologically speaking, I would agree.
I can accept people like Semenya as a woman, but would it be acceptable to you for "real" cis males (with testes and elevated testosterone levels) who identify as female to compete in female sporting events?
Can we just have different competitive classes based on testosterone level then? Are weight classes in wrestling sex segregated?
Testosterone testing is expensive as all get out, and difficult to enact at younger ages, where numbers whiz about like crazy.
Sex segregation is a cheap, and usually very easy, way to segregate by average testosterone levels.
It sucks for folks like Semenya, who don't fall into this usually neat binary, but the binary exists for a reason.
I know many female athletes who would just have no opportunity to compete without sex segregated sports. And this is true at almost every level and in almost every sports. Remember that most competitive sports were created by design as male endeavors. They were not designed to have women be equally competitive.
How Semenya identifies is completely her decision, and we ought not question that, but she does have the distinct advantage of testosterone-producing testes on her side as a competitor, something most every other female competitor does not have.
Ms Semenya has a right to adopt whatever personal gender identity she chooses.
But, biologically speaking, she is male and - because of high testosterone levels - she cannot compete on an level playing field with women athletes.
No. Biologically speaking most males not only have testes, but they also have a pattern of primary and secondary sexual development that is often, but not always triggered by testosterone. "Male" and "female" are two central tendencies on a bimodal distribution. Biology as a whole is more than comfortable with the fact that sex is more complex than a binary division.
"the binary exists for a reason"
Convenience, when it leads to marginalization, may be a reason but it sure as hell isn't a very good one.
"I know many female athletes who would just have no opportunity to compete without sex segregated sports."
Even if the sports were divided based on other factors that more directly impact performance? I mean, look: I'm barely five feet high and that pretty much eliminated any chance I had to compete in volleyball or basketball, but I don't see people demanding height-segregated leagues. Maybe people over a certain height should be banned from competing with men or women because they have advantages others don't have.
The fact of the matter is that the reason we choose sex and gender as the dividing line has absolutely nothing to do with what is easy to test for (because first you'd have to make binary definitions which it turns out isn't so easy) or with making a fair playing field (because factors that have little or nothing to do with gender would have to be involved in that case). We choose it because we're simply used to dividing society up in this way.
And if we used height instead of gender we'd have leagues of shorter men dominating shorter women because they've got these things known as testes that produce testosterone, to the point where women are competing against folks who might as well be on steroids.
It's not fair to ask a 5'4" woman to compete against a 5'4" man in a sport that's gauged on speed and strength. It isn't.
Why are steroids banned? They artificially raise testosterone levels such that they produce an artificial advantage over other competitors. Now, why would you ask women to compete against folks who have the natural biological process of churning out much more testosterone?
Sports are not inclusive to everyone. That's very true. Women who are shorter, slower, or weaker than other women will be at a disadvantage in womens' sports. That's the nature of physical competition. Some of it's skill, some of it's what you were born with.
I just don't see how it's fair to essentially relegate women to the back-burner in sports in some misguided search for fairness in an endeavor where no fairness exists, nor was meant to exist.
Ought we eliminate affirmative action because there's "got to be a better way"? No. Sometimes expedience does matter. Sometimes righting wrongs means using imperfect solutions.
The binary exists because it's an easily facilitated way to keep folks with severe differences in testosterone from competing with each other, such that those who produce less biologically don't get the short end of the stick in this regard.
It sucks that some people get burned by this system, but until you can show me that perfect alternative I'm going to go with the solution that will let my potential daughters play just as much soccer or tennis or basketball as my potential sons.
Maybe my burden in this argument is that i'm really not a sports person, but no part of me would care, honestly, even if a cis man wanted to compete in female sports, or if a cis woman wanted to compete in male sports. But I guess I do have to understand that for the people who dedicate their lives to sports, competing with someone who has an unfair advantage for whatever reason would be very dispiriting.
My real anger is over how this woman's private life has been violated, how people are slandering her, how this one incident is going to used to tout all gender binaries. All invested parties need to ask themselves if the consequences of her being stripped of the medal is worth it.
One more thing:
What if Caster just had high testosterone levels for the average woman and no internal testes? Should she STILL be stripped on the medal? Where do you draw the line?
Then without testes, she's not physically male, but a top ten class 800m female runner.
But the only issue people say they have with Semenya being physically male is that it gives her high testosterone levels, which give her an unfair advantage, right? I mean that's the reasoning.
So, by that logic, if she was born biologically female and her body just produced higher-than-average testosterone levels, she still has an unfair advantage and should still be disqualified. But I don't think anyone would be willing to disqualify her for THAT, because most people who see that as sexism (or at least more people would).
So I'm asking, where you suggest we should draw the line here. She running time isn't nearly fast enough to compete in men's running. So the choices are; allow her to compete in women's running or bar her from any running event, undermining all the nonbiological factor that helped her get to where she is (like the fact that she's practiced harder than I could imagine practicing for anything). Neither option is totally fair to everyone involved, but to me the former option seems a lot more fair.
But the only issue people say they have with Semenya being physically male is that it gives her high testosterone levels, which give her an unfair advantage, right? I mean that's the reasoning.
So, by that logic, if she was born biologically female and her body just produced higher-than-average testosterone levels, she still has an unfair advantage and should still be disqualified. But I don't think anyone would be willing to disqualify her for THAT, because most people who see that as sexism (or at least more people would).
So I'm asking, where you suggest we should draw the line here. Her running time isn't nearly fast enough to compete in men's running. So the choices are; allow her to compete in women's running or bar her from every running event, undermining all the nonbiological factors that helped her get to where she is (like the fact that she's trained harder than I could imagine practicing for anything). Neither option is totally fair to everyone involved, but to me the former option seems a lot more fair.
I don't think that's the only issue. There's a pretty reasonable argument to be made that having things like a uterus and breasts takes energy for your body to maintain and makes your body less well shaped for things like running. Caster not only has more testosterone, she also doesn't have the burden of a female reproductive system using up resources in her body.
I'm not really sure where I come down on this issue, but I think its more complicated than just testosterone.
A cis male wouldn't identify as female, the definition of cis is that the person has a gender identity which matches the body they were born with.
The rules actually do allow a transperson to compete as the gender they identify so long as it's been at least two years after transitioning.
On another note, how does Caster Semenya's time compare to the time of a man running the 800? She could probably compete against them and win, if she's allowed to.
All right, I meant "born" men, and I think you know it. Are transwomen considered transitioned, if they keep their testes and don't take female hormones, which would probably change their muscle or fat composition? Have you heard of competitive males doping with female hormones to improve performance (could help in e.g., swimming long distances at sea)? Are women with testes (and no ovaries) fair competition for cis women? Are men who present as women, but with testes, fair competition for cis women? (see 800m times below)
"On another note, how does Caster Semenya's time compare to the time of a man running the 800? She could probably compete against them and win, if she's allowed to."
In fact, Semenya is a record level women's runner, in top ten ever class, but not even close, for a man of similar level. Even nine seconds slower last year, Semenya was an event record holder as a woman. There are events where a trained man does not hold an advantage over a trained woman. I'm looking forward to seeing women competing with men in baseball, basketball and golf, or in motorsports. Maybe even tennis. But running over a relatively short distance is not one of those events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_metres
People suspected something unusual with Semenya because she finished two seconds ahead of the others (and still in the realm of born with ovaries record holders). She did not finish 15 seconds (like 150m in an 800m race) ahead of the silver medalist, like a similarly performing man would have. If Semenya performed "like a man" you would have seen what the problem was.
Semenya didn't cheat, unlike athletes who secretly and deliberately use banned substances to improve their performance. Major League baseball players are examples of athletes allowed to continue their careers and keep their records. Officials on both sides dropped the ball by not realizing sooner. Semenya's been catching shit since early childhood according to interviews. How did they miss that?
On another note: "India's own Caster Semenya"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1919562,00.html
You did mean "born" men, but that doesn't make "'real' cis males" not offensive. I'm real, and I'm a male--I also happen to have ovariers and uterus. I'm still real, I'm still male, and I'm still a real male.
Please use non-offensive words for what you actually mean.
I'm open to feedback. What term should I use to express the idea of a mainstream biological born male, e.g., with external, descended testes and or penis, but no ovaries or female genitalia? Would a different term be used if that person were a transwoman?
cis man or cis male would work. Using adjectives like "real" implies that trans men are not really men.
Testosterone levels aren't the only sexual characteristic that influences athletic performance. I'm getting tired of the perpetuation of the idea that it is. Bone structure, the extra energy it requires to run (for lack of a better word) the female reproductive system, weight distribution, are all factors.
Whether an individual considers themselves male, female or intersexed (their gender) should not be a criteria for their competing in sex categories in sport.
Sport is a biological competition. If we are going to segregate in sport it should be on the basis of sex not gender. How to define where the line is on sex is a hard question. My personal preference is for the standards to be set on the basis of an athlete's ability to function as a biological woman. And then if illness, disease, injury, etc. prevent this then whether the specific cause represents an athletic advantage should be considered.
"Sport is a biological competition. If we are going to segregate in sport it should be on the basis of sex not gender."
So what are you suggesting about Semenya and others like her, and what division they should compete in? Should she be allowed to be a top ten ever female runner, or compelled to run with men and at this point in her development at least (just 18, but she did cut 9 seconds off her time in a year), not be competitive? Back when her story first made the news, a writer claimed her record setting women's time would be a high school level male runner's time, not world class.
Men's competition is open. I have no hope of running as fast as Caster, but that is the category I'd have to run in as a male.
I see women's competition as being valuable to encourage women to participate in physical pursuits.
Where to draw the line is hard but I said above what I think it should be based on.
Biologically speaking, there just isn't a hard line or criteria that allows us to separate most organisms into binary gender categories.
Not substantive, but semantic: Oswego is outside of Chicago, not in it.
Who knew that heckling the President was “dissing America”.
Any major conservative republican could tell you that heckling the president was dissing America...unless that president is a democrat, of course. Then it's "taking your country back."
I don't doubt that. But pointing out that Red Team does it too does not make this guy any righter.
I know I'm not man enough to satisfy my girlfriend, because she drew up a list of guys she'd cheat on me with, but Joltin' "Joe" Addison Graves Wilson, Sr, is most definitely not on it.
The story from Oswego is really sad, but I don't see where they're pretending it's not the guy's fault. They're not looking for any other suspects, so they recognize that he stabbed her. "Lover's quarrel" simply implies lovers who were fighting, which is not an excuse, but very likely a fact. And the police say that "the investigation is leaning toward" murder-suicide, but nothing's official yet. So how is that not recognizing that this is, indeed, violence against a woman? Unless there is history of domestic abuse (and the story gives no word either way), I see no reason to cry foul on the characterization of what happened.
There's a difference between saying "oh the man was under a lot of stress from the economy and he went crazy" and saying "someone beating their partner is domestic violence." Intimate partner violence is a systemic issue that goes beyond two people working out their problems. Too often cases like this are painted as a lover's quarrel and this hides the deeper issue. The societal belief that intimate partner violence is a private affair does a lot of harm to those (mostly women, but some men too) who are trapped in these violent relationships. It's not so much that the article didn't blame the man--because it did--but more so that by not recognizing the domestic violence aspect of the battery, it's glossing over a very serious, very real issue. Whether or not there was a history of domestic violence isn't the problem--it only takes one time for someone to end up dead, as we see here. More articles like this need to talk about the intimate partner violence aspect so others have the vocab and understanding to do something about it.
I don't see the problem with the article either - they acknowledged that this man went to his girlfriend's home, stabbed her to death, and then shot himself.
And since they were in fact lovers and there was likely a dispute before he choose to murder her, it was in fact a "lovers quarrel".
Which may not be the Politically Correct term - but considering this was an article written by a suburban mainstream journalist interviewing regular suburban folks (the cops - her friends and family ect) who aren't part of the college educated PC inner circle, the use of normal English language terminology is to be expected.
Also, I do have to applaud the local paper for NOT racializing the crime - even though he was African American and she was White (it would be far too easy to fall into that trap - especially considering this country's long racist history).
The problem with this story is that if you read the comments below it, her friends and family are outraged b/c so many important details are missing, such as the fact that they were no longer a couple. There was a history of domestic violence, a break up, and stalking involved. The paper doesn't report on this. At first I thought, okay, well maybe b/c those details are so personal. However, they are very relevant to her death. She was not adequately protected for whatever reason. This was not a "lover's quarrel" or the result of the economy. As her friends and family report, there was a history of abuse and the terrifying result that, yet again, our system failed this woman and she is dead now b/c of it.
I guess Caster Semenya is just another example out of thousands that show the disconnect between the sex segregation of sports and reality.
However, it does seem like something of a victory for those that questioned her sex for her to turn out to, in fact, have testes. I suppose we should grant that they were right, that she isn't strictly female in the sense used in the segregation of sports, even if their motives were questionable.
As unfair as it is to Caster, how would the problem be fixed?
1) Mixed sports: Women get eliminated in most sports.
2) Let athletes chose their gender? That will be unfair for the women as well cuz that will only work one way.
3) Special Olympics?? Caster did get a raw deal from nature.
1) Mixed sports: Women get eliminated in most sports.
Well, don't act as though they compete at the elite level as it is. In segregated sports, women already compete in a lesser category, so I'm not clear on what would really be lost here.
If there were no segregation in many events where raw size strength or speed are an advantage like weightlifting, or no classes exist, like NFL football, there would probably be no competitive women or women's events at all, as opposed to having separate women's sports and events. That's what the difference would be.
I don't know how to treat the real but rare case of Semenya to make it "fair" for her AND mainstream women's athletes. So she's not a born woman. But she's not a man.
In a similar vein, there are many world class athletes denied an opportunity to compete, or to shine. Example: athletes who peak or show world class performance, when there is no big name event like the Olympics, or who do not meet age criteria, like female gymnasts. How about those who do not qualify for the slots on their own country's teams, when even their "losing" performance for an elite squad could make short work of most of other nations' athletes? What if the Chinese had been allowed to send more female gymnasts to the Olympics? What if the US could send more men's basketball teams? How about those who do not have access to world class instruction like former Soviet bloc gymnastics legends that coach athletes in the US to victory, or elite programs like in communist countries that select and groom children since preschool? How about those who have low expectations put on them, but in fact, are perfectly capable of record performances like Harada of the Japanese ski team? (I've tried to explain to people how an Olympic winner is not necessarily the world's "best," or how a winner in a "best of" event like a baseball tournament or World Cup soccer is not necessarily the best, to little avail.)
Such people just have to live with their lack of opportunity to be world champions or record holders, and few if any know of their stories or support them.
Ok, I just got this link via facebook from a republican "friend" (haven't talked to in years), and it really pisses me off. Anyone else see it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOw-yOLstRQ
The whole thing seems to be a set up. This is unrelated to the above post, but I want more information on it before I respond, because the entire production seems messed up
Incidentally, 'hermaphrodite'?! I was annoyed to see that the story linked to was from the Daily News and used that slur, but a quick Google search revealed that most sites are using it exclusively. For the love of God, this woman has been under enough scrutiny without having to be referred to as a technically impossible and inaccurate term that is widely considered to be offensive.
I especially liked how they said she has no womb or ovaries, then in the next paragraph she's a hermaphrodite. Apparently the NY Daily News can't be arsed to buy a dictionary... or even bookmark dictionary.com.
Also, how is this "deadly" all of sudden?
I think there's a higher chance of some of the gonad tissue becoming cancerous... at least, that's what I learned from House. I don't think its necessarily deadly, just statistically more risky. You could decide to worry about it and remove parts, or decide to wait and see-- just like women who find out they have a gene that makes them more likely to get breast cancer.
yeah, i was shocked to see that term used. its extrememly offensive. i might have to figure out how to contact these people so i can tell them they are ignorant assholes.
Technically incorrect yes. Impossible no.
Hermaphrodite is a medical term, and Castor, if she has only testes, is not one. A hermaphrodite is an individual with both testicular and ovarian tissue, whether the gonads are fully developed or not (I just learned that).
That was a piss poor article from a medical stand point. If she were AIS, as mentioned in the article, she wouldn't have such excellent muscular development, duh.
I wouldn't believe that article just yet, anyway. The IAAF says they haven't released the results, and sources "close to the testing" frequently turn out to be bullshit. I'm waiting for a named source to disclose the test results before I believe anything.
"There are events where a trained man does not hold an advantage over a trained woman. I'm looking forward to seeing women competing with men in baseball, basketball and golf, or in motorsports"
women cannot compete against men in baseball, basketball, golf, tennis or anything of the sort. if you're looking forward to that, you'll be looking for a long time. *some* women at the top could possibly beat some men at the bottom in the professional realm, but they'll never be on par. the quicker you learn this the quicker we can move on to more important topics.
Women have competed in the NBA in the past. Women have competed in Formula 1. A woman has won races in the World Rally Championship. Team sports where size and strength are not the most crucial aspects, or motorsports and equastrian events where light weight and horse/car control are most crucial are areas where women can and do sometimes compete with men at the highest level.
Physically developing with sports is a factor, and one of the reasons why I believe women's sport is important - an alternative body image to the beauty stereotype is crucial. Yet, in many sports elite male's size and strength are insurmountable obstacles for women's success in the forseeable future.
Let me just correct that a little: In 1980, Ann Meyers signed a $50,000 no-cut contract with NBA's Indiana Pacers but didn't actually play a game.
"women cannot compete against men in baseball, basketball, golf, tennis or anything of the sort. if you're looking forward to that, you'll be looking for a long time."
Girls and women will need to grow up and physically develop with sports (like swimmers and their bodies), without being expected to be ladylike or told what they cannot do, to see what their real potential is, like women are being allowed to get an education and work, or hold elected office.
Women can´t compete in golf? Because of strength?
Hm there really is a separate women´s leage, never had thought this.
And recently some high profile women's players have played in a couple of men's tournaments with discouraging results. I will say though, that those results were achieved on days with perfect weather conditions. When there is a lot of wind, driving long becomes risky and you see many of the older pros excelling. In these conditions you'd expect more women to be competitive.
"Women can´t compete in golf? Because of strength?"
I did not say nor mean strength. I said "develop." In golf, that would also mean, e.g., muscle memory and form, not strength or brute force, which can contribute to a 400 yard drive. My brother was 5'7" 140 lbs, and could hit 400 yard drives. As someone who casually took up the game in college, he had a handicap of six that took our father about 30 years of regular play to achieve. My brother could perform well in any sport he chose, and competed in seven, including being made pitcher of his corporate league team despite not playing (outfield) since high school.
Development could also suggest the mental focus to perform consistently well over 72 holes of play. Even "best in the history of golf" Tiger Woods has bad days.
Oh god I live right outside of Oswego... I haven't even heard about this, this is so sad...
I feel bad for Caster Semenya on a personal level, but it is simply not fair to ask women who are biologically female to compete against someone who, frankly, isn't. It doesn't matter if the differences in performance, strength, and so on between men and women are biologically or culturally based, they still exist. And yes, I would feel exactly the same way if, say, Roger Federer came out as trans, complete with hormones, and asked to compete on the women's tennis tour. That clearly wouldn't be fair to the Williams sisters and other top female players, and neither is this.
If the differences were just cultural then it wouldn't be a problem because Caster Semenya has been raised as a girl/woman and thus exposed to culture from a female perspective.
I agree. I know that's not popular to say in this forum but...it's not fair for her to compete against biological females and the Federer analogy is on point.
"'Real' cis males" ... "biologically speaking" ... ah, yes, it's time for everyone to unleash their disdain/apathy/superiority towards intersex and trans people.
This comment thread is disgusting. Basically, screw trans and intersex people, right? Too bad, so sad--but hey, it's not like this is something that affects MOST people, that affects "REAL" people. So maybe not so sad for y'all smug, shrugging jerks.
Since when it "well, only the minority is affected" a good reason to screw people over? Let Caster Semenya compete as woman, segregate sports based on physiological characters, or find another fair way for people like Semenya to compete--but shrugging off the end to Semenya's fucking CAREER as "oh, well" is just not acceptable.
I think the point is that there IS a fair way for her to compete - she just isn't doing it now. The fair way is for her to compete against the men, which is the whole point of the issue.
I understand your frustration, but to allow Castor to compete with women is unfair to ALL of the other women - which is alot more unjust overall then having her compete with the men.
"The fair way is for her to compete against the men, which is the whole point of the issue."
That is not an acceptable solution. She is not a man. If there's a competition that allows men and women, and it's based on testosterone levels, that's fine. But a "men and Selmenya" league is offensive.
"I understand your frustration, but to allow Castor to compete with women is unfair to ALL of the other women - which is alot more unjust overall then having her compete with the men."
Are you intersex? Are you intersex? If you are not, then I dare say you DON'T understand my frustration. There are a lot of proposed solutions that aren't unfair to non-intersex and cis women--a number of which that have been discussed on thread on this very site--but people keep insisting on ignoring those solutions in favor of ones that screw over trans and intersex athletes. That is my problem.
Why must Caster Semenya compete as a woman? That she identifies as a woman is fine, but I take issue with the notion that self-identification ought to be the defining characteristic for sex-segregated sports. That's not fair, either.
Caster Semenya's career isn't over. However, her career competing in a league where she has a distinct biological advantage is over.
We don't need to find "another fair way for people like Semenya to compete". It already exists. She can run the 800m against folks who have similar testosterone levels.
It's unfair to ask the other female 800m runners to compete against a woman who has the natural ability, due to internal testes, to create so much testosterone that it's similar to someone taking steroids.
"We don't need to find 'another fair way for people like Semenya to compete'. It already exists. She can run the 800m against folks who have similar testosterone levels."
Yes, we do. That league with "folks who have similar testosterone levels" is, at the moment, called men's competition. Forcing Semenya into that league either misgenders or degenders her (to the best of my knowledge, of course, as all the reports I've read have her identifying herself as a woman), and that is not okay.
I see a lot of complaints but I still don't see any realistic solutions being offered.
On one side there's people like me saying, "sucks to be her, but wayagonado".
Then there's people replying, "don't say it sucks to be her because she's a victim and it sucks to be her".
At least we've got some common ground.
There aren't any "realistic solutions" because every time a solution is offered, people say, "Oh, we can't do that."
Well, have we tried? No? Then, well, maybe we can.
I don't need to throw pigs down a bridge to know they ain't flyin.
She has three times the average female level of testosterone - as do many female athletes. Moreover, there's evidence that she's insensitive to testosterone, so it has less effect.
That's still one TWENTIETH the level of many male athletes.
On average, an adult human male body produces about forty to sixty times more testosterone than an adult human female body, but there's a large variation amongst individuals, and at various times in the oestral cycle.
I'll apologize for my ignorance and privilege making public comments about an individual's private life.
But as for your other comments, it is not my intent to "screw trans or intersex" people or minorities or women. I am recognizing the inherent unfairness of a system which denies a variety of groups and individuals the opportunities to demonstrate what they are capable of. I also recognize the inherent unfairness in certain groups and individuals (like men) being born with characteristics or circumstances that would give them an advantage over others who demonstrate an equal or greater amount of effort, determination and sacrifice. Take Olympic weightlifting, for example: currently, a male recordholder of just 60-62 kg (132-141 lbs.) might outperform any woman of any size, weight, strength, training or effort, in competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_records_in_weightlifting
Is it fair for men in general, to have this kind of advantage over women? No it is not. It is no more fair than people being born wealthy white Americans, or being allowed into an Ivy League school because your father went there or donated a few million dollars. You envision some sort of system to make competition fair. So do I. I believe people should be recognized and rewarded for effort, not advantage. Thus someone who runs at their personal best could be recognized as a winner (like golfers playing under handicap), despite others coming out ahead.
More on people being denied the opportunity to compete:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/london_2012/article5454403.ece
Here is a British woman of just 15 years old and 126 lbs., who has "set 98 British records last year and won a gold medal at the Commonwealth Youth Games in Poona, India in October," and "she has been named Athlete of the Year in her sport by the British Olympic Association.
"The accolade ranked her alongside Sir Chris Hoy, the newly knighted triple Olympic cycling champion, and Andy Murray, Britain's top-ranked tennis player, who received the award in their respective sports."
You get that? A petite 14 year old young apparent WOC is the greatest female weightlifter in the UK and Commonwealth, in competition. Called strongest girl in Britain. Athlete of the Year. And she started training just TWO YEARS ago, at the age of 12. She is competing directly against other world class athletes with years of physical development and training ahead of her, as well as breaking any number of senior, ADULT records. Furthermore, she is of course a student, who gets in just eight hours of training a week, not an adult training full time, at some national training center.
However, she was denied the opportunity to compete in the Olympics, simply because she is under 16. Who knows what kind of circumstances will affect her participation in, or performance at the 2012 Olympics?
People like her must simply suck it up, if it was her desire to represent her nation or herself at the 2008 Olympics, or for her achievement to be recognized as a world's greatest at the Olympics. (Some Chinese athletes did have the opportunity to be Olympic champions despite reasonable disputes over their age, and no one is threatening their medals.) But competition or rules will not be changed for her, or people like her. Not for being British, young, a woman, or an ethnic minority.
And it is not fair.
Ugh. Again when I say must, as in "People like her must simply suck it up," I am not saying that is what they SHOULD do, or how it SHOULD be. I am recognizing how that expectation, e.g., wait until 16 for the Olympics, is unfair.
I strongly urge everyone to read what Fausto-Sterling has written about intersex conditions, rather than speculating and othering. Sex, like gender, is a social construction.
I find it difficult to digest the idea that sex is a social construct. Certainly the existance of Intersex people confuses the gender binary, but it seems fair to say that in nature (amongst mammals), it is necessary to have a couple with the physical characteristics of a male and a female to conceive a child, and that the biological distinction into categories is based on that. If anything that is a scientific construct rather than a social one.
A less clear example of that same type of scientific construct might be the separation of cats into tigers and lions. Ligers and tigons exist but that doesn't invalidate the categorisation. Sex is a clearer example because there is a primary biological function (reproduction) that distinguishes, whereas the tiger/lion example only has secondary traits as distinguishing features.
Um no.
You see, in biology it's never as simple as a Punnett square. Most phenotypes, including the arrangement of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, are described as a series of Gaussian curves. Intersexual sit in the slopes between a bimodal distribution, and there really isn't a scientific justification for rhetorically or surgically forcing them towards one of the two modes.
Comparing this to lions and tigers is a bit off for a couple of reasons. But even there: there is no single genotype or phenotype that defines lions and tigers. Serengeti lions have manes, Tsavo lions do not. Siberian and Bengal tigers are two distinct populations as well.
And well, science is a social construction. We observe patterns in nature, and we create generalizations to describe them.
"Intersexual sit in the slopes between a bimodal distribution, and there really isn't a scientific justification for rhetorically or surgically forcing them towards one of the two modes."
I never said anything about surgically forcing anyone to do anything, and object to the implication that I did. All I'm saying is that primary sexual characteristics make sense for categorisation in sport; certainly it makes more sense that using secondary sexual characteristics or gender (which is a social construct).
"And well, science is a social construction. We observe patterns in nature, and we create generalizations to describe them."
Well, yes that is true, but it's not what most people think when you use the term 'social construct'. Social constructs are typically things with no scientific basis.
"I never said anything about surgically forcing anyone to do anything, and object to the implication that I did."
Of course, I didn't make such an implication. But Fausto-Sterling's work in Sexing the Body (which is what you chose to respond to) does point out that medical views regarding human gender and sex became more rigid with the development of surgical procedures to "fix" intersex and transsexual people.
"All I'm saying is that primary sexual characteristics make sense for categorisation in sport; certainly it makes more sense that using secondary sexual characteristics or gender (which is a social construct)."
But that opens a whole can of worms. Are AIS women to be categorized as men? What about women with unusually-high levels of testosterone? How do we deal with the fact that testosterone levels in women and men overlap regardless of gonads? All you are doing here is putting an arbitrary line in the sand, which is certainly something we do a lot in sports, but we shouldn't pretend that such categories have nature's seal of approval. The lines you are choosing to advocate are political and social constructions.
"Well, yes that is true, but it's not what most people think when you use the term 'social construct'. Social constructs are typically things with no scientific basis."
Well, your arbitrary lines in the sand between "social construct" and "scientific basis" are pure nonsense, "not even wrong" so to speak.
Furthermore, they don't apply at all in the case of the work of Fausto-Sterling who I'm convinced makes a strong case that medical definitions of sex and gender are social constructs that have changed over time, and also shows how those social constructs influenced by emerging understandings of human development, as well as the ability to medically shape human development.
"Well, your arbitrary lines in the sand between "social construct" and "scientific basis" are pure nonsense, "not even wrong" so to speak."
How much do you know about the scientific method? Have you read any Bacon for instance? Done any research on the history of scientific endeavour?
The process is such that it evolves to become more objective as the science matures. As more experimentally verifiable results are known ideas in science approach objective facts/knowledge.
It is the presence of these experimentally verifiable results that draw the line between 'scientific basis' and 'social construct.' It is not an arbitrary line drawn in the sand.
"But that opens a whole can of worms. Are AIS women to be categorized as men? What about women with unusually-high levels of testosterone? How do we deal with the fact that testosterone levels in women and men overlap regardless of gonads? All you are doing here is putting an arbitrary line in the sand, which is certainly something we do a lot in sports, but we shouldn't pretend that such categories have nature's seal of approval. The lines you are choosing to advocate are political and social constructions."
To a certain extent I agree with you here. The local minimum on a population distribution plot of sex characteristics is not entirely arbitrary though. And as I've posted above testosterone level isn't the be all and end all of what discriminates performance between men and women. My personal preference is that the categories be divided along being able to function as a woman in a reproductive sense because you need a different body type to be able to carry a child and give birth, if you have the type of body that can do that then you are going to be at a disadvantage in terms of size and strength over someone with otherwise the same biology. Rewarding those who are the best athletes while also being able to fulfil that biological function seems fairest. Use that as the basis and then if illness, disease, injury, etc. result in an inability (in theory) to function as a biological woman then whether the specific cause represents an athletic advantage should be considered.
I realise that proposing a women's category in sport at all is a social or political decision. There are good reasons for it though.
"How much do you know about the scientific method? Have you read any Bacon for instance? Done any research on the history of scientific endeavour?"
Certainly, I've actually pitched a research proposal in microbiology, collected the data, analyzed it, an engaged in that social construction of theory. I have the 200+ thesis and faculty hazing rituals behind me. I've read not only Bacon but Hume, Kant, Descartes, Dewey, James, Popper, Latour, and Kuhn.
And well, the view that continual scientific progress will ever do more than approximate objective truth is a big philosophical leap of faith these days.
"The process is such that it evolves to become more objective as the science matures. As more experimentally verifiable results are known ideas in science approach objective facts/knowledge."
Certainly. The problem is that more objective is never objective. It's an inherent limitation of the scientific method. I can't responsibly say that my conclusions are objectively true. I can only say that the odds of my conclusions being wrong within the limits of my sampling and measurement techniques are very small.
"I could be wrong," is a fundamental assumption built into both the scientific method and all of the gritty hypothesis-testing strategies built from it. If I don't include that in both my results and abstract, I'm not doing science, I'm doing pseudoscience.
And a critical factor that you are missing here is that there is a huge difference between facts (data) and knowledge (theory). Data on its own just isn't very useful unless you start using it to test hypotheses, and creating a consensus about those hypotheses called a theory. Denying the social construction of both hypotheses and theory is certainly foolish, and often dangerous.
Well, we're not far from agreement now.
I'm not ignoring the human input that goes into making a theory to be tested, but that's not the only thing that goes into a theory. The results of previous science has an impact on the theory proposed. A good theory has an objective test, etc. etc. and now we are a long way from the topic of discussion.
That being whether categories with a scientific basis are better than those created by other social constructs. Now, I believe they are because they tend to have undergone some degree of refinement as a result of hypothesis and test. To suggest that any meme has the same validity as scientific ideas is irresponsible.
The question of whether other disciplines are just as valid as science depends on what question you want to ask. I don't think anyone should depend on the scientific method to have their rights protected in court for example, or whether Ponyo is more friendly towards women than Up.
But in the context of this discussion. We are talking about a specific critique of a specific theory. Fausto-Sterling points out that the theories and practices of the medical community in regards to sex changed radically over the course of the 20th century, the current practice tries to force people to conform to a gender binary, and that this critically biases research regarding sex and gender as a result.
Pointing out that sex within medicine and science is a social construction isn't a denial that people have gonads and secondary sexual characteristics. It's a recognition that the current theory, practice, and body of work is biased in such a way that ignores a fair chunk of human diversity and exaggerates differences.
That's the claim that Fausto-Sterling brings to the table here.
And really I have no problem with that. That seems reasonable. But I don't see how that gets us any closer to deciding what the line should be between men's and women's athletic competition.
Further, if I understand correctly, a lot of that discussion centres around secondary sexual characteristics. My earlier suggestion was that primary sex characteristics (i.e. reproductive role) be the basis for categorisation. The fact that we have an understanding of the differences between primary and secondary sex characteristics is a result of scientific study. Denying that biological knowledge seems unhelpful.
Maybe you have a different view point, a division along testosterone levels? That seems less fair to me. What level do you think the division should be? Why? Do you suggest different sporting categories for different types of intersex people? How do you envision that working practically?
I guess my concern isn't so much with how the athletics groups involved divide up the world. My concern is with the way that many people are trying to gender Castor as "a man" and invoking "biology" to do so as if there isn't this bi-modal range with overlap (including much milder ones like bearded women and countertenors).
"She's a man in terms of genetics/physiology/anatomy/etc.," strikes me as only slightly less problematic than biological justifications for behavioral Mars/Venus.
"To me, "biology is a social construct" means no more than what it says: theories and concepts in biology are created and tested by people in collaboration with other people."
This is my problem. To the layman a social construct is a thing purely of human invention or a product of prolonged group-think, typically having no objective basis. It is on the basis that such things have no objective basis that we feel we have the right to easily dismiss, overturn and subvert them.
Science by it's nature strives to be objective. Maybe it can't achieve complete objectivity but the process means it tracks incrementally closer - for the most part. But when you lump science in the same category as other social constructs, which as I say implies no objectivity to the layman, you deny that a hierarchy of validity exists. And that is borne out in this statement:
"Biology doesn't get a special privilege over sociolinguistics or feminist criticism because it looks at testosterone rather than speech acts."
Well, here I disagree with you. Biological science has the power to distinguish what the real physical differences are between men and women. (And when I read well thought out biology papers on the subject I'm usually pleased to find that the findings support the assertions of feminism - that the physical differences do not account proportinally for what we see in society.) A good approximation for objective reality DOES deserve a special privilege over uninformed group-think inventions!
Sorry. I replied to the wrong bit there (I've reposted that bit further down).
Actually, I completely understand what you say here and agree with it. We should be careful to keep discussions about categorisation in sport separate from discussions of sex and gender in society as a whole. In sport we need hard lines, but categorisation in the community as a whole is unnecessary and damaging.
I will add that I'm strongly convinced that the burden of proof is on the athletics organizations to show active wrong-doing if they are going to deny her previously won honors.
Accidentally breaking the rules, whilst not cheating, does result in disqualification in other sports. I fail to see why the same thing wouldn't apply here.
Biology is what it is. I find it condescending to say that a person's organs are a social construct, regardless of the organ in question.
Organs are not a social construct. But the existence of people whose anatomy, karyotype, and hormones don't fall comfortably within the central tendencies we call "male" and "female" isn't a social construct either.
Fausto-Sterling makes a strong argument that our desire to make everyone conform to those central tendencies so that we can classify them as "male" or "female" doesn't do justice to human diversity.
people whose anatomy, karyotype, and hormones don't fall comfortably within the central tendencies we call "male" and "female"
Those people have a sex. It may not be "male" or "female," but it is real. Their sex is not a social construct. Sex is not a social construct. I find that truly insulting.
Those people have a sex. It may not be "male" or "female," but it is real. Their sex is not a social construct. Sex is not a social construct. I find that truly insulting.
No one has said that their sex is a social construct. However the way that the medical community assigns and recognizes sex is. And that is what Fausto-Sterling is addressing, the medical theory and practice of imposing binary definitions of sex onto people.
And for fuck's sake. Biology is a social construct. Science is a social enterprise. It's not like Darwin's original theory or the Grand Synthesis were written on the bottom of a rock that someone discovered.
I object to your bolding. The language we use to to describe biology is socially constructed, some of the catgorisation used within the science of biology is constructed for scientific convenience, biology itself is not a social construct! That is unless you want to continue the argument to say that atoms are social constructs as well, in which case what is the point of talking about anything?
"The language we use to to describe biology is socially constructed, some of the catgorisation used within the science of biology is constructed for scientific convenience, biology itself is not a social construct!"
Well, here you are making a critical error in confusing the systematic construction of theories and categories in order to describe phenomena with the phenomena its self. All of the categories we use in biology are social constructions for our convenience. They may be grounded in underlying phenomena but we should never, ever, become smug in our insistence that our categories are correct.
Because you know what? 50 years ago, it made sense to put animals and yeast into different kingdoms. 15 years ago, that categorization stopped making sense when we started sequencing DNA.
So when we are confronted with a person like Castor Semenya (and thousands like her) our views of binary gendered classification need to be replaced by more nuanced views of human development. We modify the theory to fit the data, not shoehorn the data to fit a convenient theory.
"That is unless you want to continue the argument to say that atoms are social constructs as well, in which case what is the point of talking about anything?"
Well yes, atoms are social constructs. In the original Greek atomic theory, atoms were that which cannot be divided. Then we found the basic units behind chemical interactions, and we called them atoms. But then we discovered that the positive charge can be separated from the negative charge. Then we discovered that atoms could be subdivided into parts, and those parts could be subdivided as well. Not only that, but atoms are also waves which could be made to interact in weird ways at very cold temperatures. And then we have some really wacky physics of atoms the size of a small planet as remnants of supernovas.
So yes, "atom" is a socially constructed category of convenience. It's certainly grounded in physical phenomena, but future data collection may force us to rethink that category. Then we'll scratch our heads and come up with something new.
Yes, I know all that (I have a PhD in Physics) and that is my point. When we discover new things we modify the current theory rarely is it overturned completely. What we knew already is incorporated into a new fine-tuned theory.
When protons and electrons were discovered that resulted in atoms no longer being considered the smallest fundamental particles. However, the chemistry we already knew from considering atoms as the smallest particles didn't suddenly become obsolete.
"All of the categories we use in biology are social constructions for our convenience. They may be grounded in underlying phenomena but we should never, ever, become smug in our insistence that our categories are correct."
So your solution is to ignore current theory and understanding and replace it with what exactly? Current understanding is a good basis for categorisation, if our understanding changes then so should that categorisation. But you should always act on your best understanding at the time. Consider that there are still some scientists (I know some personally) who are unconvinced that human activity is not at present the primary driver of climate change. Does that mean we should ignore the current consensus and do nothing?
Yes, I know all that (I have a PhD in Physics) and that is my point. When we discover new things we modify the current theory rarely is it overturned completely. What we knew already is incorporated into a new fine-tuned theory.
Well then if you know all that, you have absolutely no reason to object to the notion that theories are social constructions, much less object to Fausto-Sterling's critique of the medical construction of gender binaries.
So your solution is to ignore current theory and understanding and replace it with what exactly?
No, my solution is to treat theories for what they are, social constructions that can be debated, critiqued, and modified.
Current understanding is a good basis for categorisation, if our understanding changes then so should that categorisation. But you should always act on your best understanding at the time.
Except that the "current understanding" as created by the medical community involves ignoring intersexual, transsexual, and genderqueer persons at best, and coercing them into binary categories at worst. When the "current understanding" doesn't take into account reality as experienced by thousands of people, then it needs to be revised.
Consider that there are still some scientists (I know some personally) who are unconvinced that human activity is not at present the primary driver of climate change. Does that mean we should ignore the current consensus and do nothing?
No, neither should we accept the current consensus as objective truth when there is evidence at hand that it might be overly optimistic about the scale and timeframe of climate change.
"Well then if you know all that, you have absolutely no reason to object to the notion that theories are social constructions, much less object to Fausto-Sterling's critique of the medical construction of gender binaries."
No, and if you read my responses more carefully you'll see that I'm not doing that exactly. What I am saying is that you can't treat scientific principals in the same was as other 'social constructs.' You can't throw them out entirely without good reason, rather they need to be built on and fine tuned.
Now, you might have a good reason, when you say that current medical categorisation does not take into account a lot of different types of people. However, I think medical science has a much better handle on the nuances than the general public's perception of biology's categorisation.
But when you say 'for fuck sake biology is a social construct' you deny that it has any more validity than the idea that little girls should wear pink or that red roses are a symbol for love. That is foolish and irresponsible.
But when you say 'for fuck sake biology is a social construct' you deny that it has any more validity than the idea that little girls should wear pink or that red roses are a symbol for love. That is foolish and irresponsible.
Obvious fallacy. Saying that biology is a social construct is not saying that all social constructs should be treated equally. It only means that we need to consider the methods and processes through which biological knowledge is created.
And perhaps it's just the bisexual in me, but I don't grok or accept the duality that you are setting up here. To use an example, English is an entirely arbitrary social construct, but it's a social construct that shapes political and social reality reality for millions of people, which makes the study of rhetoric, literature, folklore, and music worthwhile.
"Obvious fallacy."
Sorry, couldn't disagree more. That's how your statement comes across. If that wasn't what you were intending you should have thought more about what you were trying to say.
If you now want to say language is imperfect. Fine. It is, but these two hours or so of debate we've been having could probably have been avoided if you'd used it more responsibly to begin with.
Make that 4 to 5 hours.
Sorry, couldn't disagree more. That's how your statement comes across.
Why? To me, the epistemology of science and cultural relativism are two radically different issues and claims. I don't see a connection between the two.
Saying that a particular field of science is a social construct isn't a controversial claim in the philosophy of science. Science has been championed as such by people from Dewey to Dawkins. And I honestly don't understand why you choose to attach a negative connotation to it.
To me, "biology is a social construct" means no more than what it says: theories and concepts in biology are created and tested by people in collaboration with other people. That's it. And if you see any other political meaning to it, you need to explain the connection because I don't have a clue as to how you get that meaning.
I also don't understand the dichotomy you are trying to create here between biology and other social constructs. My point in talking about English is it's just as ontologically real and powerful as the molecule testosterone. Biology doesn't get a special privilege over sociolinguistics or feminist criticism because it looks at testosterone rather than speech acts.
"To me, "biology is a social construct" means no more than what it says: theories and concepts in biology are created and tested by people in collaboration with other people."
This is my problem. To the layman a social construct is a thing purely of human invention or a product of prolonged group-think, typically having no objective basis. It is on the basis that such things have no objective basis that we feel we have the right to easily dismiss, overturn and subvert them.
Science by it's nature strives to be objective. Maybe it can't achieve complete objectivity but the process means it tracks incrementally closer - for the most part. But when you lump science in the same category as other social constructs, which as I say implies no objectivity to the layman, you deny that a hierarchy of validity exists. And that is borne out in this statement:
"Biology doesn't get a special privilege over sociolinguistics or feminist criticism because it looks at testosterone rather than speech acts."
Well, here I disagree with you. Biological science has the power to distinguish what the real physical differences are between men and women. (And when I read well thought out biology papers on the subject I'm usually pleased to find that the findings support the assertions of feminism - that the physical differences do not account proportinally for what we see in society.) A good approximation for objective reality DOES deserve a special privilege over uninformed group-think inventions!
And that is a sensible response to the issues in the global warming debate by the way.
I'd like to know where I can read about these planet sized atoms. What is the proper term for them?
Neutron Stars, I believe.
Biology is only a social construct if you assume I was talking about the field which describes and categorizes living things. I was not. I was talking about the stuff, the body parts, the junk, if you will. Junk is what it is, it ain't a social construct. Kick the red herring out of the path, and stop denying that intersexed individuals have a sex.
That "junk" isn't biology, especially not in the context of a critique of human sex as constructed by the medical community over the last decade. The red herring is talking about the "junk" in response to a specific critique of medical theory and practice, and sloppily misusing the word "biology" along the way.
There's a lot to say and lot I've been thinking about re: Caster Semenya, especially since this morning on the Today Show (and I can't find the link on their website) reported that much of this discussion of testes-vs.-ovaries hasn't been confirmed by the IAAF, and they are withholding judgment until sometime in November. So there's a lot of speculation going on about something that may or may not be true.
Secondly ... I'm a little squicked out about the entitlement so many people seem to feel about this speculation. Is Ms. Semenya's internal organs really our business? And how terribly unfair is it that being played out in such a public way? I assume Ms. Semenya was raised as a girl, identifies as female, trained with the identity of a woman athlete and competed against women, working hard the whole time to achieve a phenomenal level of success as an athlete. She didn't dope, she worked hard. As others have said, she didn't cheat or set out to deceive anyone. If it is true that she has no uterus or ovary - imagining being raised your whole like thinking that, by virtue of being a woman, you had those things and the capacity we assume comes with them. And then - boom - it's gone, and it's playing out on the world stage with people calling you all sorts of names. That's really freaking awful.
If any good comes out of this, I hope it's that it forces more people to understand and accept that even our notions of biological sex are severely limited in public discourse. It's not as simple as XX or XY.
You want solutions? How about.... Testing onlt SOME athletes based on the fact that they are FEMALE (no one competing as a male gets gender-tested, eh?)and "not very feminine looking" is discrimination, plain & simple.
Either test everybody or nobody.
Absolutely.
Both the testing and the media coverage as been unfair, and often racist and sexist. The coverage of this compared to the coverage of Sarah Gronert earlier this year (http://www.aolhealth.com/condition-center/womens-sexual-health/gender-controversy-intersex-conditions/) is astounding. Part of that is due to Semenya's higher visibility/fame due to her sport and level of athleticism, but even just comparing comments on the news articles is sickening, and a lot of that is due to the differences in physical appearance of the two.
Both commentators and blog writers consistently complimented Gronert's appearance, commenting that she was "beautiful" and even "more feminine than the Williams sisters." Whereas Semenya was attacked and singled based almost entirely on her physical appearance. Gronert's case indicates that if this type of testing is going to be fair, the standards for testing for all athletes need to be consistent and stringent REGARDLESS of athleticism or appearance. That won't eliminate all the phobia, racism or sexism from the media and commentators, but it would make the testing itself fair.
Jezebel has a good post on the subject of Caster Semenya:
http://jezebel.com/5357218/australian-news-report-describes-semenya-as-hermaphrodite-sparking-anger-outrage